Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/468



Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Moellring, J.

Defendants appeal from an order denying a motion to dissolve an attachment.

Reversed.

Per Curiam Opinion.

Fisk & Shafer, for appellants.

There is no showing that appellant had sold, assigned, secreted or otherwise disposed of his property with intent to cheat or defraud his creditors, or that he was about to do so. And there is no showing by such alleged statement that he was about to remove his property from this state, or a material part thereof with the intent or to the effect of cheating or defrauding his creditors, and the motion to vacate the attachment should have been granted. Jones v. Hoefs, 14 N. D. 232; 103 N. W. 751; Palo Sav. Bank v. Cameron, 168 N. W. 769, (Iowa); Piper v. Wade, 132 N. W. 786, (S. Dak.).

Burdick & Knox, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to discharge an attachment. The grounds specified in the affidavit for attachment are:

"That the defendant has removed or is about to remove his property, or a material part thereof, from this state, not leaving enough therein for the payment of his debts. Has sold, assigned, transferred, secreted or otherwise disposed of, or is about to sell, assign, transfer, secrete, or otherwise dispose of, his property with intent to cheat or defraud his creditors, or to hinder or delay them in the collection of their debts; is about to remove his property, or a material part thereof, from the state with the intent or to the effect of cheating or defrauding his creditors or hindering or delaying them in the collection of their debts or judgments."

Under the warrant of attachment issued upon such affidavit, the sheriff levied upon an automobile belonging to the defendant Isaac Ogland. The defendants moved to discharge the attachment on the ground that the charges in the affidavit for attachment were untrue.